Cover up

[BoilerMadness]

That's the new buzz word for the Dems.

If the Senate doesn't call all the witnesses that the House elected not to call, it's only because it was a cover up.

If the Senate doesn't subpoena all the records that the House elected not to subpoena, it's only because it was a cover up.

If the House had actually found some High Crimes with which to charge Trump, instead of the two generic articles of impeachment they settled for, perhaps this Impeachment Trial may have some validity. Unfortunately for the country, the Dems are just playing dirty politics and are doing this just to muddy Trump up, hoping it will have a negative impact on his election.

Now they have to deal with the Law Of Unintended Consequences. Unless you are the most blind, indoctrinated person on the planet, you will recognize that this impeachment has been a sham from the beginning. In a rare moment of candor, Nancy Pelosi admitted that the impeachment process had been ongoing for over 2.5 years. Hmmm, I thought that the phone call that this impeachment was allegedly based on, had occurred within the last year. I guess that's just confirmation that for over three years, the Dems had a penalty and they were just searching for a crime to charge Trump.
This phone call was the closest they could get and time was running out before the election.

Any rational thinking person can see the desperation in this undertaking. If you can't beat him, impeach him. It's really sad that the Dems have had to sink so low.

 

[indy35]

That's the new buzz word for the Dems.

If the Senate doesn't call all the witnesses that the House elected not to call, it's only because it was a cover up.

If the Senate doesn't subpoena all the records that the House elected not to subpoena, it's only because it was a cover up.

If the House had actually found some High Crimes with which to charge Trump, instead of the two generic articles of impeachment they settled for, perhaps this Impeachment Trial may have some validity. Unfortunately for the country, the Dems are just playing dirty politics and are doing this just to muddy Trump up, hoping it will have a negative impact on his election.

Now they have to deal with the Law Of Unintended Consequences. Unless you are the most blind, indoctrinated person on the planet, you will recognize that this impeachment has been a sham from the beginning. In a rare moment of candor, Nancy Pelosi admitted that the impeachment process had been ongoing for over 2.5 years. Hmmm, I thought that the phone call that this impeachment was allegedly based on, had occurred within the last year. I guess that's just confirmation that for over three years, the Dems had a penalty and they were just searching for a crime to charge Trump.
This phone call was the closest they could get and time was running out before the election.

Any rational thinking person can see the desperation in this undertaking. If you can't beat him, impeach him. It's really sad that the Dems have had to sink so low.

You have the propaganda talking points down, unfortunately for you those are far away from reality.

 

[BuilderBob6]

That's the new buzz word for the Dems.

If the Senate doesn't call all the witnesses that the House elected not to call, it's only because it was a cover up.

If the Senate doesn't subpoena all the records that the House elected not to subpoena, it's only because it was a cover up.

If the House had actually found some High Crimes with which to charge Trump, instead of the two generic articles of impeachment they settled for, perhaps this Impeachment Trial may have some validity. Unfortunately for the country, the Dems are just playing dirty politics and are doing this just to muddy Trump up, hoping it will have a negative impact on his election.

Now they have to deal with the Law Of Unintended Consequences. Unless you are the most blind, indoctrinated person on the planet, you will recognize that this impeachment has been a sham from the beginning. In a rare moment of candor, Nancy Pelosi admitted that the impeachment process had been ongoing for over 2.5 years. Hmmm, I thought that the phone call that this impeachment was allegedly based on, had occurred within the last year. I guess that's just confirmation that for over three years, the Dems had a penalty and they were just searching for a crime to charge Trump.
This phone call was the closest they could get and time was running out before the election.

Any rational thinking person can see the desperation in this undertaking. If you can't beat him, impeach him. It's really sad that the Dems have had to sink so low.

Sorry, but you're either stupid or a liar.

Elected not to call? Who, specifically, are you talking about? Are you saying the house didn't ask for Pompeo and Mulvaney to testify?

"High crimes" doesn't mean crimes!!!!! Do you understand that?

Any rational person knows that a trial with no witnesses is not a trial.

The pubs complain about a quick process in the house and then do the same thing? Who is supposed to be the more reputable body here?

 

[BoilerMadness]

You have the propaganda talking points down, unfortunately for you those are far away from reality.

It's your propaganda. I'm merely pointing it out.

There was never any doubt about the outcome of this sham impeachment. When the Senate votes to dismiss this farce, the Dems will scream COVER UP and hope they can ride that BS to an election win. Only a few people, like you and W are so blindly indoctrinated that you will buy this crap without one second of thought.

 

[bonefish1]

It's your propaganda. I'm merely pointing it out.

There was never any doubt about the outcome of this sham impeachment. When the Senate votes to dismiss this farce, the Dems will scream COVER UP and hope they can ride that BS to an election win. Only a few people, like you and W are so blindly indoctrinated that you will buy this crap without one second of thought.

Maxine Walters was interviewed and said that if this impeachment doesn't work, they'll try to find something else and impeach him again.
Oh, Crazy Ole' Maxine. I think her wig might be too tight.

 

[indy35]

Maxine Walters was interviewed and said that if this impeachment doesn't work, they'll try to find something else and impeach him again.
Oh, Crazy Ole' Maxine. I think her wig might be too tight.

There's no shortage of stuff to work with from the most corrupt and criminal President the country has ever seen.

 

[bonefish1]

There's no shortage of stuff to work with from the most corrupt and criminal President the country has ever seen.

Yeh, dems will have the check book out looking for more sacrificial lambs willing to claim something Trump did to them 30 years ago.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Sorry, but you're either stupid or a liar.

Elected not to call? Who, specifically, are you talking about? Are you saying the house didn't ask for Pompeo and Mulvaney to testify?

"High crimes" doesn't mean crimes!!!!! Do you understand that?

Any rational person knows that a trial with no witnesses is not a trial.

The pubs complain about a quick process in the house and then do the same thing? Who is supposed to be the more reputable body here?

You are so blindly partisan that you're incapable of independent thought. Why didn't the House try to compel any witnesses they wanted to testify? They didn't want to waste the time, because this whole process is purely about a power grab by the Dems. They thought they'd have plenty of time to Impeach Trump about "Collusion with the Russians", but that fell through for them, so the search for a crime continued. This bogus phone call was the best they could come up with, before time ran out.

High Crimes does mean that the individual being impeached has done something gravely wrong, not just ignore Congressional requests, which they can resolve in the courts. In the Clinton Impeachment, I believe there were specifications for 11 specific felonies, here we have NONE. The Dems are setting a precedent that can tear this country apart, but they don't give a rat's ass, if it allows them to get back in power. Realize that if the Dems pull off this BS impeachment, the next time there is a Dem President and a Rep House, this silly game will likely get played again.

Any rational person knows that an investigation that has no proof of any criminal activity does not yield an indictment, either. We hate him and we can't stop him from being reelected is not grounds for an impeachment.

The Dems did a shoddy job in the House. Now they are trying to get the Senate to do their work, under the threat that if they don't, the Dems will brand it as a Cover Up. If the House doesn't have sufficient evidence, from their investigation (and they don't), why would the Senate be required to waste their time on spurious charges?

 

[TwinDegrees2]

That's the new buzz word for the Dems.

If the Senate doesn't call all the witnesses that the House elected not to call, it's only because it was a cover up.

If the Senate doesn't subpoena all the records that the House elected not to subpoena, it's only because it was a cover up.

If the House had actually found some High Crimes with which to charge Trump, instead of the two generic articles of impeachment they settled for, perhaps this Impeachment Trial may have some validity. Unfortunately for the country, the Dems are just playing dirty politics and are doing this just to muddy Trump up, hoping it will have a negative impact on his election.

Now they have to deal with the Law Of Unintended Consequences. Unless you are the most blind, indoctrinated person on the planet, you will recognize that this impeachment has been a sham from the beginning. In a rare moment of candor, Nancy Pelosi admitted that the impeachment process had been ongoing for over 2.5 years. Hmmm, I thought that the phone call that this impeachment was allegedly based on, had occurred within the last year. I guess that's just confirmation that for over three years, the Dems had a penalty and they were just searching for a crime to charge Trump.
This phone call was the closest they could get and time was running out before the election.

Any rational thinking person can see the desperation in this undertaking. If you can't beat him, impeach him. It's really sad that the Dems have had to sink so low.

And lovely Maxine Waters was on CNN yesterday shouting (she has no clue how to speak) that if this fails in the Senate, the House will certainly impeach POTUS again, and that "they have charges they will file".

Sorry Bone....I didn't see your earlier post about Maxine.

 

[SDBoiler1]

You are so blindly partisan that you're incapable of independent thought. Why didn't the House try to compel any witnesses they wanted to testify? They didn't want to waste the time, because this whole process is purely about a power grab by the Dems. They thought they'd have plenty of time to Impeach Trump about "Collusion with the Russians", but that fell through for them, so the search for a crime continued. This bogus phone call was the best they could come up with, before time ran out.

High Crimes does mean that the individual being impeached has done something gravely wrong, not just ignore Congressional requests, which they can resolve in the courts. In the Clinton Impeachment, I believe there were specifications for 11 specific felonies, here we have NONE. The Dems are setting a precedent that can tear this country apart, but they don't give a rat's ass, if it allows them to get back in power. Realize that if the Dems pull off this BS impeachment, the next time there is a Dem President and a Rep House, this silly game will likely get played again.

Any rational person knows that an investigation that has no proof of any criminal activity does not yield an indictment, either. We hate him and we can't stop him from being reelected is not grounds for an impeachment.

The Dems did a shoddy job in the House. Now they are trying to get the Senate to do their work, under the threat that if they don't, the Dems will brand it as a Cover Up. If the House doesn't have sufficient evidence, from their investigation (and they don't), why would the Senate be required to waste their time on spurious charges?

The Ds could have used the courts to get people they wanted to testify but chose not to because it wasn’t politically expedient in regards to the 2020 election. Going to the courts would have driven their “inquiry” well past November 2020. Couldn’t have that.....

 

[doubleyous]

That's the new buzz word for the Dems.

If the Senate doesn't call all the witnesses that the House elected not to call, it's only because it was a cover up.

If the Senate doesn't subpoena all the records that the House elected not to subpoena, it's only because it was a cover up.

If the House had actually found some High Crimes with which to charge Trump, instead of the two generic articles of impeachment they settled for, perhaps this Impeachment Trial may have some validity. Unfortunately for the country, the Dems are just playing dirty politics and are doing this just to muddy Trump up, hoping it will have a negative impact on his election.

Now they have to deal with the Law Of Unintended Consequences. Unless you are the most blind, indoctrinated person on the planet, you will recognize that this impeachment has been a sham from the beginning. In a rare moment of candor, Nancy Pelosi admitted that the impeachment process had been ongoing for over 2.5 years. Hmmm, I thought that the phone call that this impeachment was allegedly based on, had occurred within the last year. I guess that's just confirmation that for over three years, the Dems had a penalty and they were just searching for a crime to charge Trump.
This phone call was the closest they could get and time was running out before the election.

Any rational thinking person can see the desperation in this undertaking. If you can't beat him, impeach him. It's really sad that the Dems have had to sink so low.

How hard did it turn out to be to " find" something involving Trump, that might have adverse consequences ?? Not the Democratic Party's fault that Trump has been a walking invitation to impeach , since his CAMPAIGN started. "Sink so low as to have a POTENTIAL 50,000 pages of damning material to bring to the table in this matter - only a fraction of which will probably be available for the public to see - due to the White House's obstruction ??

 

[BoilerMadness]

The Ds could have used the courts to get people they wanted to testify but chose not to because it wasn’t politically expedient in regards to the 2020 election. Going to the courts would have driven their “inquiry” well past November 2020. Couldn’t have that.....

That's the cover story, at least. I suspect that the courts would have expedited the cases for Congress, but Schiff knew there wasn't any there there, so the Dems kicked the can to the Senate. If it would have taken so long months ago, when this was in the House, why do I think that the Dems will be screaming Cover Up, if the Senate can't get the witnesses, that the House neglected to get? That's their game plan.

So far today, I've heard speeches by Nadler, Schiff & Schumer and each one has rung the COVER UP bell several times. That's all this is about is trying to throw mud on the President and the Republicans for the 2020 election. Petty politics at it's worst.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

How hard did it turn out to be to " find" something involving Trump, that might have adverse consequences ?? Not the Democratic Party's fault that Trump has been a walking invitation to impeach , since his CAMPAIGN started. "Sink so low as to have a POTENTIAL 50,000 pages of damning material to bring to the table in this matter - only a fraction of which will probably be available for the public to see - due to the White House's obstruction ??

Dub's....you claim to be so intelligent, yet you constantly ignore the facts that the Dem's have nothing that would lead to impeachment. Nothing. This is a ploy because they know they can't defeat the man in 2020 with any of the candidates currently running.

Do you honestly believe half of what you post? Do you honestly believe that your party has one snowball's chance in hell of winning the POTUS this year, and if so...name them.

Hillary screwed your party for years to come when it allowed the socialists (not even Dem's) to take control of it. Where are the Joe Manchin's of WVA, who are of the more moderate/ Blue Dogs and why are they not running? I like Manchin a lot....As of January 2020, FiveThirtyEight, which tracks congressional votes, found that Manchin had voted with Trump's position about 54% of the time. In 2013, the National Journal gave Manchin an overall score of 55% conservative and 46% liberal.

That's the type of candidate that can defeat Trump.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

That's the cover story, at least. I suspect that the courts would have expedited the cases for Congress, but Schiff knew there wasn't any there there, so the Dems kicked the can to the Senate. If it would have taken so long months ago, when this was in the House, why do I think that the Dems will be screaming Cover Up, if the Senate can't get the witnesses, that the House neglected to get? That's their game plan.

So far today, I've heard speeches by Nadler, Schiff & Schumer and each one has rung the COVER UP bell several times. That's all this is about is trying to throw mud on the President and the Republicans for the 2020 election. Petty politics at it's worst.

Here's how that happens....They all get in a dark room, toss out words as they have their circle jerk...and whatever sticks (no pun intended) is the buzz word of the day.

 

[doubleyous]

Dub's....you claim to be so intelligent, yet you constantly ignore the facts that the Dem's have nothing that would lead to impeachment. Nothing. This is a ploy because they know they can't defeat the man in 2020 with any of the candidates currently running.

Do you honestly believe half of what you post? Do you honestly believe that your party has one snowball's chance in hell of winning the POTUS this year, and if so...name them.

Hillary screwed your party for years to come when it allowed the socialists (not even Dem's) to take control of it. Where are the Joe Manchin's of WVA, who are of the more moderate/ Blue Dogs and why are they not running? I like Manchin a lot....As of January 2020, FiveThirtyEight, which tracks congressional votes, found that Manchin had voted with Trump's position about 54% of the time. In 2013, the National Journal gave Manchin an overall score of 55% conservative and 46% liberal.

That's the type of candidate that can defeat Trump.

Dub's....you claim to be so intelligent, yet you constantly ignore the facts that the Dem's have nothing that would lead to impeachment. Nothing. This is a ploy because they know they can't defeat the man in 2020 with any of the candidates currently running.

Do you honestly believe half of what you post? Do you honestly believe that your party has one snowball's chance in hell of winning the POTUS this year, and if so...name them.

Hillary screwed your party for years to come when it allowed the socialists (not even Dem's) to take control of it. Where are the Joe Manchin's of WVA, who are of the more moderate/ Blue Dogs and why are they not running? I like Manchin a lot....As of January 2020, FiveThirtyEight, which tracks congressional votes, found that Manchin had voted with Trump's position about 54% of the time. In 2013, the National Journal gave Manchin an overall score of 55% conservative and 46% liberal.

That's the type of candidate that can defeat Trump.

Got PLENTY for you on THIS post, bro. , later. Get your combat helmet and flak vest out of the closet.
Have to hit the road, now. Big showdown $ match @ TopGolf, down here, this aft. Then on to Mackey
for the Ill. W...…….later..Go Boilers.

 

[BoilerMadness]

How hard did it turn out to be to " find" something involving Trump, that might have adverse consequences ?? Not the Democratic Party's fault that Trump has been a walking invitation to impeach , since his CAMPAIGN started. "Sink so low as to have a POTENTIAL 50,000 pages of damning material to bring to the table in this matter - only a fraction of which will probably be available for the public to see - due to the White House's obstruction ??

As I've said before, we hate him and we can't beat him is not grounds for impeachment, no matter how much you want it to be.

How many levels of brain death have you incurred to believe that this has been anything but a political hack job by the Dems. Trump won an election that he wasn't supposed to win and everyone from Obama to the Republican "Never Trumpers" have gone to great lengths to negate that election. Now they're really desperate, since the country is enjoying tremendous success and Trump is virtually assured of reelection, so he's being accused of cheating in the last election (No proof), cheating in the upcoming election (No proof) and a COVER UP if things don't go the Dems way. This is a blatant attempt at a coup and some of you brain dead, hyper-indoctrinated drones are not thinking beyond your party biases. If this can happen now, it can also happen to a Dem President. I'm less concerned about Trump, than I am about the precedent being set. The Founding Fathers have to be rolling over in their graves.

Remember what Pelosi said about going forward with an impeachment? She wanted overwhelming evidence and a bipartisan vote. She got neither and proceeded anyway. The only bipartisan component of the vote was the vote AGAINST impeachment. So much for Pelosi's integrity.

 

[SKYDOG]

As I've said before, we hate him and we can't beat him is not grounds for impeachment, no matter how much you want it to be.

How many levels of brain death have you incurred to believe that this has been anything but a political hack job by the Dems. Trump won an election that he wasn't supposed to win and everyone from Obama to the Republican "Never Trumpers" have gone to great lengths to negate that election. Now they're really desperate, since the country is enjoying tremendous success and Trump is virtually assured of reelection, so he's being accused of cheating in the last election (No proof), cheating in the upcoming election (No proof) and a COVER UP if things don't go the Dems way. This is a blatant attempt at a coup and some of you brain dead, hyper-indoctrinated drones are not thinking beyond your party biases. If this can happen now, it can also happen to a Dem President. I'm less concerned about Trump, than I am about the precedent being set. The Founding Fathers have to be rolling over in their graves.

Remember what Pelosi said about going forward with an impeachment? She wanted overwhelming evidence and a bipartisan vote. She got neither and proceeded anyway. The only bipartisan component of the vote was the vote AGAINST impeachment. So much for Pelosi's integrity.

Oh Nancy!

 

[BuilderBob6]

You are so blindly partisan that you're incapable of independent thought. Why didn't the House try to compel any witnesses they wanted to testify? They didn't want to waste the time, because this whole process is purely about a power grab by the Dems. They thought they'd have plenty of time to Impeach Trump about "Collusion with the Russians", but that fell through for them, so the search for a crime continued. This bogus phone call was the best they could come up with, before time ran out.

High Crimes does mean that the individual being impeached has done something gravely wrong, not just ignore Congressional requests, which they can resolve in the courts. In the Clinton Impeachment, I believe there were specifications for 11 specific felonies, here we have NONE. The Dems are setting a precedent that can tear this country apart, but they don't give a rat's ass, if it allows them to get back in power. Realize that if the Dems pull off this BS impeachment, the next time there is a Dem President and a Rep House, this silly game will likely get played again.

Any rational person knows that an investigation that has no proof of any criminal activity does not yield an indictment, either. We hate him and we can't stop him from being reelected is not grounds for an impeachment.

The Dems did a shoddy job in the House. Now they are trying to get the Senate to do their work, under the threat that if they don't, the Dems will brand it as a Cover Up. If the House doesn't have sufficient evidence, from their investigation (and they don't), why would the Senate be required to waste their time on spurious charges?

Trump BLOCKED the witnesses the house wanted. He didn't exert executive privilege, he just said NO. That is obstruction of Congress. Tell me why it isn't.
You have the nerve to accuse the house of not doing their job when they couldn't interview the key witnesses. Explain to me how they were supposed to get first hand info if the witnesses that had it were blocked from testifying. Explain that to me.

How the hell is this a power grab? The house has no power. None. Watch and see how much power they have as the senate conducts a trial without witnesses and every Republican votes with the president because they're afraid of doing what they know is right because trump will use people like you to keep them from being elected.
Power grab? Trump has all the power here. Wtf is wrong with you?

 

[TwinDegrees2]

Trump BLOCKED the witnesses the house wanted. He didn't exert executive privilege, he just said NO. That is obstruction of Congress. Tell me why it isn't.
You have the nerve to accuse the house of not doing their job when they couldn't interview the key witnesses. Explain to me how they were supposed to get first hand info if the witnesses that had it were blocked from testifying. Explain that to me.

How the hell is this a power grab? The house has no power. None. Watch and see how much power they have as the senate conducts a trial without witnesses and every Republican votes with the president because they're afraid of doing what they know is right because trump will use people like you to keep them from being elected.
Power grab? Trump has all the power here. Wtf is wrong with you?

The House has no power?????? Damn brother, they're 1/3 of the friggin' co-equal branches that run this country. They're the ones with the impeachment power. And not every Repub will vote with the Prez...Ol' Mitten's will go for impeachment because Trump embarrassed the hell out of him. Then you got Loony Tunes 1 & 2 out of Alaska and Maine who....which ever the way the wind is blowing...may go against the party along with Alexander who isn't running again.

And yes, I will work against any GOP elected official who votes for impeachment. Not because it's Trump, but because it's America that they'd be screwing.

 

[indy35]

The House has no power?????? Damn brother, they're 1/3 of the friggin' co-equal branches that run this country. They're the ones with the impeachment power. And not every Repub will vote with the Prez...Ol' Mitten's will go for impeachment because Trump embarrassed the hell out of him. Then you got Loony Tunes 1 & 2 out of Alaska and Maine who....which ever the way the wind is blowing...may go against the party along with Alexander who isn't running again.

And yes, I will work against any GOP elected official who votes for impeachment. Not because it's Trump, but because it's America that they'd be screwing.

People that care about Trump more than the country are disgusting.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

People that care about Trump more than the country are disgusting.

I care more about the country. Thus I care more about Trump than liberals who want everything given to them by the government and have lived that way for years....in slavery and bondage to the Democrat give away programs.

 

[indy35]

I care more about the country. Thus I care more about Trump than liberals who want everything given to them by the government and have lived that way for years....in slavery and bondage to the Democrat give away programs.

I knew you were dumb, but Jesus, you always surprise at how bad it really is.

 

[indy35]

Listening to everyone so far, the Republicans are getting their clocks cleaned, which makes sense since all the evidence is not on their side at all.

 

[glidresquirrel]

Listening to everyone so far, the Republicans are getting their clocks cleaned, which makes sense since all the evidence is not on their side at all.

Yes because you listen to CNN I thought W was dumb and then I read the worthless shit you post. You are friggin dumber than a rock!

 

[BuilderBob6]

You are so blindly partisan that you're incapable of independent thought. Why didn't the House try to compel any witnesses they wanted to testify? They didn't want to waste the time, because this whole process is purely about a power grab by the Dems. They thought they'd have plenty of time to Impeach Trump about "Collusion with the Russians", but that fell through for them, so the search for a crime continued. This bogus phone call was the best they could come up with, before time ran out.

High Crimes does mean that the individual being impeached has done something gravely wrong, not just ignore Congressional requests, which they can resolve in the courts. In the Clinton Impeachment, I believe there were specifications for 11 specific felonies, here we have NONE. The Dems are setting a precedent that can tear this country apart, but they don't give a rat's ass, if it allows them to get back in power. Realize that if the Dems pull off this BS impeachment, the next time there is a Dem President and a Rep House, this silly game will likely get played again.

Any rational person knows that an investigation that has no proof of any criminal activity does not yield an indictment, either. We hate him and we can't stop him from being reelected is not grounds for an impeachment.

The Dems did a shoddy job in the House. Now they are trying to get the Senate to do their work, under the threat that if they don't, the Dems will brand it as a Cover Up. If the House doesn't have sufficient evidence, from their investigation (and they don't), why would the Senate be required to waste their time on spurious charges?

Trump did something gravely wrong. He asked a foreign power, actually two of them, to investigate a political opponent........on national TV. That's enough right there.
But he also leveraged military aid for the announcement of an investigation into the same opponent.
Is there a law against asking a foreign power to investigate a political opponent? Not that I'm aware of. Is it ok to do it? Please answer directly without your usual talking points.

So why didn't the house go to court? You think it would have been expedited......most everything I have read said that was less than likely.

BTW, why should it have to go to court? On what basis is the WH refusing to cooperate with congress......who has constitutionally mandated authority to oversee the executive branch. Trump did not exert executive privilege. On what basis does the WH refuse? Because they don't like it......they don't think it's fair........because Trump has been treated unfairly......because the dems lost the election. None of which is covered in the constitution.
If we assume the case is expedited, what happens if Trump loses? What always happens with Trump in his many losses in court. He appeals.

So the case goes on for months, expedited or not. Then Trump and his followers like you.........who were criticizing the speed of the house proceedings, start complaining about how long it's taking, just like the Mueller investigation. Tweets all day every day. You telling me you would have been happier in that scenario?

The reality is you would complain whether the house inquiry took 6 weeks or 6 months. Stop acting like you prefer one over the other. Doesn't matter. You would use it as a talking point either way.

It's kind of funny to hear you talk about what rational people know. What we essentially have here is a defendant who gets to block witnesses against him from testifying........pretty simple. What rational person agrees with that?

 

[doubleyous]

I knew you were dumb, but Jesus, you always surprise at how bad it really is.

Indy: Sir....that's a box of rocks that you're trying to communicate with. Medical science confirmed a long time ago that human brain cells cannot survive in an environment of the grains of various minerals (homogeneous solids) that comprise rock structures.
In other words, Twin's brain cells do not have any known molecules that are living.
No hope, I'm afraid....for that to ever change.

 

[doubleyous]

The House has no power?????? Damn brother, they're 1/3 of the friggin' co-equal branches that run this country. They're the ones with the impeachment power. And not every Repub will vote with the Prez...Ol' Mitten's will go for impeachment because Trump embarrassed the hell out of him. Then you got Loony Tunes 1 & 2 out of Alaska and Maine who....which ever the way the wind is blowing...may go against the party along with Alexander who isn't running again.

And yes, I will work against any GOP elected official who votes for impeachment. Not because it's Trump, but because it's America that they'd be screwing.

Actually, Twin.....as most 5th-graders know......the House of Representatives is ONE HALF of the Legislative BRANCH of US government...….of which there are three. Don't sweat it....absolutely NO ONE expected you to get that right.

(most observers of US politics weren't aware Sen. Murkowski and Sen. Collins were Loony (sic) Tunes.
Or recall Sen. Romney's "embarrassment" at the hands of the Poster Child of US embarrassment, Mr. Trump)

 

[SDBoiler1]

Trump BLOCKED the witnesses the house wanted. He didn't exert executive privilege, he just said NO. That is obstruction of Congress. Tell me why it isn't.
You have the nerve to accuse the house of not doing their job when they couldn't interview the key witnesses. Explain to me how they were supposed to get first hand info if the witnesses that had it were blocked from testifying. Explain that to me.

How the hell is this a power grab? The house has no power. None. Watch and see how much power they have as the senate conducts a trial without witnesses and every Republican votes with the president because they're afraid of doing what they know is right because trump will use people like you to keep them from being elected.
Power grab? Trump has all the power here. Wtf is wrong with you?

There is no federal crime called "obstruction of Congress". In fact neither of the articles refer to any kind of federal crime.

Your assertion is bull$hit. The House's job is to collect evidence and make a case that's winnable in the actual trial in the Seante. They obviously didn't do that because they had a timetable to keep. You know the election in November. They could have used the courts, but chose not to.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Listening to everyone so far, the Republicans are getting their clocks cleaned, which makes sense since all the evidence is not on their side at all.

Amendments all on a 53-47 vote except one, which was 52-48 (Susan Collins). The D House didn't make a compelling case on those.

 

[BuilderBob6]

There is no federal crime called "obstruction of Congress". In fact neither of the articles refer to any kind of federal crime.

Your assertion is bull$hit. The House's job is to collect evidence and make a case that's winnable in the actual trial in the Seante. They obviously didn't do that because they had a timetable to keep. You know the election in November. They could have used the courts, but chose not to.

Thank you. There is no law regarding obstruction of congress......but it's clearly an offense the framers would consider serious, considering how they set up our republic with the separation of powers.
So how should this violation by the executive branch be addressed if there is no law? The only remedy is impeachment.

The house collected plenty of evidence and felt they had enough to go forward. Republicans disagree. The house doesn't have any direct evidence of trump telling one of his yes men that he was holding up aid to Ukraine until they announced an investigation into his political opponent BECAUSE TRUMP BLOCKED THE TESTIMONY OF ANY WITNESSES AND THE RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS. Hence the obstruction of congress article of impeachment. Do you see how this works?

 

[BoilerJS]

Trump BLOCKED the witnesses the house wanted. He didn't exert executive privilege, he just said NO. That is obstruction of Congress. Tell me why it isn't.
You have the nerve to accuse the house of not doing their job when they couldn't interview the key witnesses. Explain to me how they were supposed to get first hand info if the witnesses that had it were blocked from testifying. Explain that to me.

How the hell is this a power grab? The house has no power. None. Watch and see how much power they have as the senate conducts a trial without witnesses and every Republican votes with the president because they're afraid of doing what they know is right because trump will use people like you to keep them from being elected.
Power grab? Trump has all the power here. Wtf is wrong with you?

The House has all the power to impeach the POTUS and that is exactly what they did. Do you realize that the Ukraine accusations were presented to the AG and he told the DOC to pound sand?
Thus the House made it political to impeach the POTUS.
Look at what is going on. The Dems have been searching for a reason to impeach Trump. They made up the Russian collusion, fail and have now impeached the POTUS on accusations that the AG thought were bogus.
The POTUS has every right to replace the ambassadors. Trump released the funds to Ukraine within the allotted time frame and with no requirements of Ukraine.
The absolute worst case scenario is Trump asked the newly elected President of Ukraine to look into who was behind Ukraine's interference in the 2016 election. Why Biden insisted the Prosecutor, who was looking into
corruption in Ukraine was fired. Why was the VP's son sitting on the Board of Directors for one of these corrupt companies.
And finally Crowdstrike. If this cyber company, who was hired by the DNC to investigate the DNC hacking incident, did in fact have the server of HRC, which very well has sensitive information on it, as POTUS I'd damned sure want to know if it was in Ukraine.
So tell me WTF is impeachable about any of this?

 

[TwinDegrees2]

The House has all the power to impeach the POTUS and that is exactly what they did. Do you realize that the Ukraine accusations were presented to the AG and he told the DOC to pound sand?
Thus the House made it political to impeach the POTUS.
Look at what is going on. The Dems have been searching for a reason to impeach Trump. They made up the Russian collusion, fail and have now impeached the POTUS on accusations that the AG thought were bogus.
The POTUS has every right to replace the ambassadors. Trump released the funds to Ukraine within the allotted time frame and with no requirements of Ukraine.
The absolute worst case scenario is Trump asked the newly elected President of Ukraine to look into who was behind Ukraine's interference in the 2016 election. Why Biden insisted the Prosecutor, who was looking into
corruption in Ukraine was fired. Why was the VP's son sitting on the Board of Directors for one of these corrupt companies.
And finally Crowdstrike. If this cyber company, who was hired by the DNC to investigate the DNC hacking incident, did in fact have the server of HRC, which very well has sensitive information on it, as POTUS I'd damned sure want to know if it was in Ukraine.
So tell me WTF is impeachable about any of this?

Nothing. That's why Maxine stated as fact that they'll impeach Trump again. And again. And again. TO ALL YOU LIBS.....THEY HAVE NOTHING THAT IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. NOT ONE DAMNED THING. AND YOU ALL KNOW IT.

 

[doubleyous]

Nothing. That's why Maxine stated as fact that they'll impeach Trump again. And again. And again. TO ALL YOU LIBS.....THEY HAVE NOTHING THAT IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. NOT ONE DAMNED THING. AND YOU ALL KNOW IT.

Sorry...no we all DON'T "know it".
(Maxine ? Nah, I'm listening to what RUDY has to say.)

 

[TwinDegrees2]

Sorry...no we all DON'T "know it".
(Maxine ? Nah, I'm listening to what RUDY has to say.)

Sure you do. Rudy will prevail.

 

[indy35]

Sure you do. Rudy will prevail.

hahaha, Rudy? Babbling morons stick together. Parnas's confessions are taking down the entire crime syndicate.

 

[doubleyous]

Sure you do. Rudy will prevail.

You're gonna be BUSY, Twin - ol' buddy !!
YESTERDAY"S polling (National):
Want Trump convicted and removed from office....51%
Want Trump to remain in office...............................45%

You're gonna have to log in to one helluva lot of message boards in this country to get that 51% down to zero. Better get started !!
(Oh,....BTW...Trump approval rating still @ 43/53. (you know which way)

 

[TwinDegrees2]

You're gonna be BUSY, Twin - ol' buddy !!
YESTERDAY"S polling (National):
Want Trump convicted and removed from office....51%
Want Trump to remain in office...............................45%

You're gonna have to log in to one helluva lot of message boards in this country to get that 51% down to zero. Better get started !!
(Oh,....BTW...Trump approval rating still @ 43/53. (you know which way)

Polls are as inaccurate as you are. We both know that, as proven by the last POTUS election. But keep on hoping and wishing and dreaming.

In the runup to the 2016 presidential election, this same question came up, and FiveThirtyEight analyzed general election polls from 1944 to 2012 that tested the eventual nominees and were conducted in the last two months of the year before the election (so for 2012, that would be November and December of 2011). On average, these polls missed the final result by 11 percentage points.

 

[doubleyous]

Polls are as inaccurate as you are. We both know that, as proven by the last POTUS election. But keep on hoping and wishing and dreaming.

In the runup to the 2016 presidential election, this same question came up, and FiveThirtyEight analyzed general election polls from 1944 to 2012 that tested the eventual nominees and were conducted in the last two months of the year before the election (so for 2012, that would be November and December of 2011). On average, these polls missed the final result by 11 percentage points.

I'm sorry to interrupt the DREAM you must have been having, but the COMPOSITE RealClear 2016 election poll - of the 21/22 most reliable polls - had Clinton wining by 4-5 pts. Which is WITHIN the polling stated margin of error...since 2.0 % was the ACTUAL final margin.

What results pollsters derived from polls between 1944 and, say, 1972 MEAN WHAT, ol' buddy ??
Methods have dramatically improved accuracy in the last f'g THREE QUARTERS OF A CENTURY !!!

Don't need to wish/hope/dream. YOU'VE got that action covered.

 

[glidresquirrel]

You're gonna be BUSY, Twin - ol' buddy !!
YESTERDAY"S polling (National):
Want Trump convicted and removed from office....51%
Want Trump to remain in office...............................45%

You're gonna have to log in to one helluva lot of message boards in this country to get that 51% down to zero. Better get started !!
(Oh,....BTW...Trump approval rating still @ 43/53. (you know which way)

What bizarre poll did you get that from? You are so full of shit ,if you spend all the time researching so you can post on here you claim to . You are really really bad. Does your time take up looking for a poll that meets your radical viewpoint and you will look until somewhere you find one? Good luck man you are wasting your life , or is your life just a waste? Either way have fun!

 

[doubleyous]

What bizarre poll did you get that from? You are so full of shit ,if you spend all the time researching so you can post on here you claim to . You are really really bad. Does your time take up looking for a poll that meets your radical viewpoint and you will look until somewhere you find one? Good luck man you are wasting your life , or is your life just a waste? Either way have fun!

" What bizarre poll " was used ?? read:

International Business Times article
Arthur Villasanta
Jan. 20, 2020
7:59 P.M. re: CNN poll

51% - remove
45% - keep
Sorry. But thx again for another repetitive stream-of-consciousness irrationality.